By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
LurkerJ said:

That's not how it starts though, but whatever works for your "team", I guess.

I believe both sides are mental and should consider professional health support, if they made it alive out of the zoo that night. Americans are hilarious. 

Here is a question for you.  When Kyle walks up to protestors with his gun in his hand and not on his back, what is the immediate thought of anyone who witness this act. 

In my opinion, Its an act of aggression because no one knows the purpose or intent of the individual.  Do you wait until the person start shooting or do you act first.  If Kyle actually pointed his gun directly or indirectly at anyone where does this take us.  What we do not have is any particular law on engagement because anyone seeing someone walking around with their rifle out coming towards you is not going to believe you are out on some midnight stroll taking in the scenery.

I think both sides were looking for trouble in these "mostly" peaceful riots, the protests had aggression acts built-in from day 1.

It doesn't help that I think lowly of the people protesting in a democratic country where someone like Bernie Sanders could be voted but continue to vote against change. It's hard to sympathise with idiots, perhaps Kyle's only redeeming quality is that he was a 17 year old boy and might grow out his stupidity one day. 



Around the Network
LurkerJ said:
Machiavellian said:

Here is a question for you.  When Kyle walks up to protestors with his gun in his hand and not on his back, what is the immediate thought of anyone who witness this act. 

In my opinion, Its an act of aggression because no one knows the purpose or intent of the individual.  Do you wait until the person start shooting or do you act first.  If Kyle actually pointed his gun directly or indirectly at anyone where does this take us.  What we do not have is any particular law on engagement because anyone seeing someone walking around with their rifle out coming towards you is not going to believe you are out on some midnight stroll taking in the scenery.

I think both sides were looking for trouble in these "mostly" peaceful riots, the protests had aggression acts built-in from day 1.

It doesn't help that I think lowly of the people protesting in a democratic country where someone like Bernie Sanders could be voted but continue to vote against change. It's hard to sympathise with idiots, perhaps Kyle's only redeeming quality is that he was a 17 year old boy and might grow out his stupidity one day. 

Why would you think lowly of people who protest which is pretty much how the US is built.  Now violence during protesting is something totally different.  Your last paragraph acts as if Bernie Sanders is someone that everyone believe as a successful politician.  For every person that loves Bernie, there is probably way more that think he is an idiot.  Do not forget that 70 million people vote for another term for Trump so there is definitely a large segment of the voting population that would definitely feel Bernie is not the direction the country should go. Protest is a way to get attention that people are not happy with the direction the country, state or local government is going.  Nothing wrong with it but with anything that can be taken advantage of, there will always be the grifters.



I know it hasn't been mentioned for a while, but the government has 9 days to raise the debt ceiling. If they don't raise it by then, they will default on it.



Smollett's attacker has been found guilty



Yeah, so what. Why this has anything to do with political and more of someone grifting his celebrity.



Around the Network
numberwang said:

Smollett's attacker has been found guilty

I'm not sure what your point is.

They were wrong about something? Oh no, no one has ever been wrong before.

They believed someone who ended up being a liar? Oh no that has never happened before.

So embarrassing to find out that the Democrats are just regular humans, and not perfect Gods like the conservatives are.



Inflation is high.

Covid pandemic still sucks and keeps evolving.

The conservative supreme court is about to open a judicial pandora's box.

Yet, I'm still so relieved to have a normal and sane president in charge. Every day under the previous administration was an exhausting attack of anxiety.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Y'know, I don't drop by this particular part of the forum often (and I don't even post on the forum in general as much these days), but I decided I had some things I have to say.

Dulfite said:
Jaicee said:

I honestly wouldn't have expected that. Alright, fair enough! Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes.

Obviously there are crazies out there, but most conservatives don't fall into those categories, just like most liberals aren't extremists in their own way. Most conservatives just want the law followed in court cases based on both federal and state constitutions. And that's where the difference resides. Liberals want what they deem is the "right" way, whereas conservatives aren't as focused on right vs. wrong and are moreso focused on the constitution and laws written as is. We just want the law followed to the letter. If the law has a loophole that someone can get away with something wrong, then it is what it is until said law is changed. We fall into this side because a WHOLE lot more damage could be done in society by subjective interpretations of law based on heightened emotions than can be done by following the law so closely that people get away with horrible things. 

You might believe that. A handful of others might genuinely believe that. But from what I've observed, conservatives writ large often don't believe in the law as a matter of principle, i.e., as something needed for an orderly society. Rather, they believe the law is a tool, or more appropriately a weapon, one to be manipulated to maximize their power. When a rule suit their purposes, they like that rule, no matter how unfair that rule is. But when a rule works against them, they seek to change the rule. And they often function as "rules lawyers," caring less about the spirit of the law than they do about the letter of the law.

Mitch McConnell has given us one of the most clear demonstrations of this with his approach towards judicial nominees. From the Merrick Garland debacle on up to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, the GOP has shown that they're now at the point where if they control the Senate, a sitting Democratic president will never get any Supreme Court (and maybe lower federal court) nominees confirmed in the event of a vacancy, because even though doing so is a violation of previous precedent, it's not technically illegal. It was never about any sort of lofty principle. It was always about maximizing their power by whatever means they can get away with, and shady-and-scummy-but-legal means are fine by them.

Or just look at the conservative approach to electoral systems. While gerrymandering is something both parties have done, the GOP does it far more frequently and obviously in recent decades. It's not technically illegal to draw a map that grotesquely favors one party over the other, so they think it's fine. And then there's the Electoral College. The vast majority of Americans prior to 2000 wanted the Electoral College abolished regardless of their political leanings, but over the past 20 years conservative support for the EC has swung wildly. They went from majority support after the 2000 election, to majority opposition to it under Obama, then back to majority support after the 2016 election. Polling results on the issue have demonstrated that conservative support for the EC depends on whether they think it works for them or not.

Speaking of the Electoral College, when conservatives felt it was working against them during the Obama years, GOP politicians in states like Michigan, which had consistently voted Democratic for many elections despite having a GOP-controlled legislature, suggested changing their state's EC vote allocation rules from winner-take-all to the Maine-Nebraska system, which would result in Republican candidates getting a good number of a state's electoral votes despite losing the statewide vote (something that could be exacerbated by gerrymandering). Anything to alter, manipulate, and exploit the rules to unfairly advantage themselves. They'd obviously never do that in a state like, say, Indiana or Texas (though we'll see about the latter if and when that state flips blue).

Of course, ever since the Trump administration, their "law & order" rhetoric rings hollow. It's becoming increasingly clear that their belief in even the letter of the law is and probably was always a completely conditional thing. I'm not talking about the penny-ante shit I see on a daily basis, where "law & order conservatives" do things like drive recklessly or pirate movies (because let's be honest: most people regardless of political persuasion will flout the rules when they think it serves them, when they think it's not a big deal, and when they think that the risk and severity of punishment is low). I'm not even talking about individual Republican politicians breaking the law, which is nothing new.

No, I'm talking about how Trump has normalized people acting like petulant children or even engaging in outright violence. This started with his rallies back when he was just a candidate running for GOP nominee, and culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, which stemmed from his constant conspiracy theories. The redhat brigade has also shown over the course of the pandemic that they don't give half a shit about rules regarding masks, etc., putting the lives of others needlessly at risk because of pure selfishness. A lawless man has fostered an increasingly lawless base utterly loyal to him. He basically burned down the facade of caring about the law and essentially said "It's okay to do whatever you want so long as it benefits me!"

Conservatives were unusually quiet about, say, the actions of Cliven Bundy and his associates, which already kinda made their supposed belief in "law and order" suspect, but their continued support for Trump in the wake of the Capitol attack and refusal to condemn those events, some of them going so far as to make up conspiracies to try to deflect from the horrific reality of the situation (because of course they would), demonstrates to me that, broadly, the American right-wing simply doesn't give a shit about the law in the abstract. They'll just flat-out break it in broad daylight with everybody watching and dare anyone to hold them accountable, and they'll rig the system to avoid that accountability as much as possible. That the GOP and the MAGA crowd have gone all-in on Trump and let him and his allies get away with their part in 1/6 makes that abundantly clear.

The conservative approach to law seems to be summed up by this comment that's made the rounds on the internet over the past several years:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

In other words, the conservative attitude is "The law doesn't exist to tell me what to do. It exists to tell those... other people what to do."

Of course, this all has a good long history behind it. Their counterparts from a century ago would, if Jim Crow laws wouldn't help them get their way, often simply go "fuck it" and resort to lynching and other forms of violence and intimidation. "Law & order" made for nice propaganda when "uppity black folks" decided to protest against Jim Crow, but at the end of the day the law was in their mind always something that existed primarily to protect white Americans (some exceptions may apply) and the power of capital (don't think I forgot about that part) and to control non-white Americans... or non-straight Americans or anyone else deemed part of an out-group. That basic mentality has for the most part continued to carry on for the decades since the end of Jim Crow. You spend enough time living in the South (as I've done for the entire 41+ years I've been alive) and you see and hear it regularly. There's nothing new under the Sun.

*Edited for typos and incomplete sentences & thoughts. I was in a rush when I wrote this.*

numberwang said:

Smollett's attacker has been found guilty

Way to poison the well, buddy.

It's clear that crap like this that I've seen making the rounds exists purely to delegitimize the movement for racial and social justice. So Smollett turned out to be a liar. So what? He'll pay for his actions, but his actions do not diminish calls to fight against racism, homophobia, and other forms of injustice. There was no reason for anyone to believe he was lying until evidence materialized that showed he was. And just because he lied doesn't mean the countless other violent acts towards minorities or the LGBT community were fabrications, either.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 13 December 2021

Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

Machiavellian said:
LurkerJ said:

I think both sides were looking for trouble in these "mostly" peaceful riots, the protests had aggression acts built-in from day 1.

It doesn't help that I think lowly of the people protesting in a democratic country where someone like Bernie Sanders could be voted but continue to vote against change. It's hard to sympathise with idiots, perhaps Kyle's only redeeming quality is that he was a 17 year old boy and might grow out his stupidity one day. 

Why would you think lowly of people who protest which is pretty much how the US is built.  Now violence during protesting is something totally different.  Your last paragraph acts as if Bernie Sanders is someone that everyone believe as a successful politician.  For every person that loves Bernie, there is probably way more that think he is an idiot.  Do not forget that 70 million people vote for another term for Trump so there is definitely a large segment of the voting population that would definitely feel Bernie is not the direction the country should go. Protest is a way to get attention that people are not happy with the direction the country, state or local government is going.  Nothing wrong with it but with anything that can be taken advantage of, there will always be the grifters.

We live in an era where voting is more powerful than protesting. You can get more done for you if you do your homework and organise and spread the message, protesting doesn't get you nearly the same results. But who wants homework, let's get out and blow the city up, that's always easier than educating ourselves about the candidates you're presented with and their history as politicians. In my opinion, Bernie failed (as a presidential candidate, not a politician), because people didn't do their homework, not that I am presenting him as the ideal candidate to elect, just an example of someone who would've pushed for real solutions if he was elected 10 years ago. So yeah, no sympathy for the lazy. 



Signalstar said:

Inflation is high.

Covid pandemic still sucks and keeps evolving.

The conservative supreme court is about to open a judicial pandora's box.

Yet, I'm still so relieved to have a normal and sane president in charge. Every day under the previous administration was an exhausting attack of anxiety.

Children of Yemen are also less anxious now that Biden is the president arming the Saudis and their famine is sponsored by a party who conveniently wears a mask that prevent from constantly remind you that there is evil in this world you can prevent if your approach to politicians was more nuanced than "I am voting for someone who's not Trump". If anything, it's probably meaner of Joe to make these bold claims about how he'll stand by the Yemenis and get their hopes up just to brush their issue off the table only after squeezing out all the political gains he could when he ran against Trump.